Author Guidelines

Author Guidelines for Journal Submission

This journal accepts two major article types: empirical research articles (IMRAD structure) and literature review articles. Below are detailed author guidelines, including explanations and short examples for each section.

1. IMRAD-Structured Articles (Empirical Research)

Title

The title should be concise, informative, and reflect the core focus of the study. A good title helps readers quickly identify the subject and method. Avoid vague wording, abbreviations, or overly technical terms.

  • Example: “Effects of Mobile-Assisted Learning on Students’ Writing Skills: An Experimental Study.”

Author Names and Affiliations

List full names of all authors without titles (e.g., Prof., Dr.). Provide institutional affiliation (department, university, city, country). Mark the corresponding author with an asterisk and include a valid email address. This ensures accountability and proper communication.

  • Example: Maria Lopez, University of Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

The abstract functions as a mini-version of the paper, enabling readers and indexers to quickly grasp the content. It should briefly state the background, objectives, methods, main results, and conclusion. Keep it between 150–250 words. Avoid citations and undefined abbreviations. End with 3–6 keywords.

  • Example (excerpt): “This study examined the impact of mobile-assisted learning on writing performance among 120 undergraduates. A quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest was employed. Results showed significant improvement in coherence and vocabulary use (p < .05).”

Introduction

The introduction explains why the study is necessary. It presents background knowledge, cites recent research, highlights the research gap, and states the study’s aim or hypothesis. This section should end with a clear problem statement or objective.

  • Example: “Despite the growing use of mobile devices in education, limited empirical evidence explains their effect on academic writing performance, particularly in non-English speaking contexts.”

Methods

This section describes how the study was conducted. It must be detailed enough for replication, covering research design, participants, instruments, procedures, ethical approval, and data analysis. Write in the past tense.

  • Example: “Participants included 120 undergraduates (60 male, 60 female; age 19–22). Writing proficiency was measured using the IELTS rubric. Independent t-test and ANCOVA were conducted using SPSS 26.”

Results

Results present the findings objectively, without interpretation. Data may be reported through text, tables, or figures. Avoid redundancy between text and visuals. Report statistical values precisely (e.g., mean, SD, p-value, effect size).

  • Example (table excerpt):

    Group

    Pretest Mean

    Posttest Mean

    Gain
    Experimental 65.2 78.4 13.2
    Control 64.7 69.1 4.4

Discussion

The discussion explains what the results mean. Authors should interpret findings, relate them to previous studies, highlight contributions, and address limitations. This is where theoretical and practical implications are emphasized.

  • Example: “The significant improvement aligns with Chen & Li (2022), who reported similar gains in vocabulary acquisition through mobile learning. However, unlike their study, our results show stronger effects on coherence, suggesting cultural or instructional differences.”

Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the essence of the study, directly answering the research question or hypothesis. It should be brief but highlight the novelty and potential implications.

  • Example: “Mobile-assisted learning significantly enhances students’ writing performance, particularly in coherence and vocabulary. Future studies should explore long-term effects and integration into blended learning models.”

Acknowledgments

This optional section recognizes funding sources, institutions, or individuals who contributed to the research but do not qualify as authors.

References

All references cited in the text must appear in the reference list and follow APA 7th edition (unless otherwise specified). Prioritize recent, high-quality journal articles.

  • Example: Chen, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Mobile learning and vocabulary development in EFL contexts. Computers & Education, 185, 104527.

2. Literature Review Articles (Narrative or Systematic)

Title

The title should indicate both the subject matter and the type of review (systematic, narrative, or meta-analysis). This helps readers immediately understand the scope.

  • Example: “Learning Models for Academic Writing: A Systematic Review of Higher Education Studies (2010–2024).”

Abstract

The abstract of a review article summarizes the scope, methods of literature search (if systematic), major themes or findings, and conclusions. It is concise and informative, guiding readers in assessing relevance. End with keywords.

  • Example: “This review synthesizes 42 studies on learning models for academic writing in higher education. Databases searched included Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Findings revealed three dominant models: process-based, genre-based, and technology-assisted approaches.”

Introduction

The introduction justifies the review, explains its scope, and identifies gaps in current knowledge. Authors should provide context and explain why this review is needed now.

  • Example: “Although numerous pedagogical models address academic writing, no recent synthesis exists to compare their effectiveness across contexts. This review addresses this gap by analyzing studies from 2010–2024.”

Methods

For systematic reviews, describe databases searched, search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and selection process (often presented in a PRISMA flow diagram). For narrative reviews, explain the logic of article selection and framework used.

  • Example: “Following PRISMA guidelines, databases searched were Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Search terms: (‘academic writing’ AND ‘learning models’). Studies were included if peer-reviewed, English-language, and published between 2010–2024.”

Results / Findings

Summarize the reviewed studies in themes or categories. Tables and figures are useful for organizing large amounts of information. Meta-analyses may include quantitative synthesis (e.g., forest plots).

  • Example (table excerpt):

    Model TypeKey FeaturesReported Outcomes
    Process-based Recursive drafting, feedback Improved coherence, fluency
    Genre-based Discipline-specific genres Better mastery of conventions
    Technology-assisted OJS, LMS, online tools Higher engagement, mixed results

Discussion

This section interprets the collective findings, discusses consistencies and contradictions, and evaluates methodological strengths/weaknesses of the reviewed studies. It should highlight both theoretical implications and practical applications.

  • Example: “Consistent with Hyland (2019), genre-based approaches remain effective in developing disciplinary writing skills. However, this review found limited integration of digital platforms into genre-based models, suggesting an area for innovation.”

Conclusion

Summarize the overall contribution of the review. Emphasize gaps identified and directions for future research.

  • Example: “The review confirms the effectiveness of process- and genre-based models, while highlighting the emerging role of technology-assisted learning. Future research should explore hybrid models that integrate digital platforms with genre pedagogy.”

Acknowledgments

As in IMRAD articles, this section recognizes funding or institutional support.

References

All cited works must appear in the reference list, formatted consistently (e.g., APA 7th). Prefer authoritative, peer-reviewed journal sources.

  • Example: Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

General Submission Requirements (Both Article Types)

  • Length: 5,000–8,000 words (excluding references).

  • Formatting: Times New Roman, 12 pt, double-spaced, 1-inch margins.

  • Figures and Tables: Maximum of 5 each, numbered sequentially, submitted in editable format.

  • File type: Microsoft Word (.docx).

  • Language: Clear academic English, free of grammatical errors.

Summary

IMRAD-Structured Articles (Empirical Research)

SectionGuidelineExplanationExample
Title Concise, specific, ≤20 words Helps readers quickly identify research focus; avoid vague or overly technical terms “Effects of Mobile-Assisted Learning on Students’ Writing Skills: An Experimental Study”
Author Names & Affiliations Full name(s), institution, city, country; corresponding author with email Ensures accountability and proper contact Maria Lopez, University of Barcelona, Spain
Abstract 150–250 words, structured (Background–Objective–Methods–Results–Conclusion); 3–6 keywords Acts as a mini-version of the article for databases and quick reading “This study examined the impact of mobile-assisted learning … Results showed significant improvement in coherence and vocabulary use (p < .05).”
Introduction State background, gap, and research objective Explains why the study is necessary; supported by recent references “Despite the growing use of mobile devices, limited empirical evidence exists on their effect on academic writing in non-English speaking contexts.”
Methods Describe design, participants, instruments, procedures, data analysis, ethics Allows replication; must be clear and systematic “Participants were 120 undergraduates (60 male, 60 female). Writing proficiency was measured using IELTS rubric. Data analyzed with ANCOVA (SPSS 26).”
Results Present findings with text, tables, or figures; avoid duplication Objective reporting of results before interpretation Table showing pretest/posttest mean differences
Discussion Interpret results, compare with literature, highlight implications, acknowledge limitations Explains what the results mean in broader context “The significant improvement aligns with Chen & Li (2022) … stronger effects on coherence may reflect cultural differences.”
Conclusion Concise, answer research objective, highlight novelty Leaves readers with key takeaway “Mobile-assisted learning significantly enhances coherence and vocabulary in student writing.”
Acknowledgments Optional; funding, institutions, or individuals Recognizes support without granting authorship “Supported by Ministry of Education Grant No. 2024-EDU-01.”
References APA 7th style; recent, relevant, high-quality Ensures consistency and credibility Chen, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Mobile learning and vocabulary development. Computers & Education, 185, 104527.

 

Literature Review Articles (Narrative or Systematic)

SectionGuidelineExplanationExample
Title Clear, specific; indicate type of review Signals scope and method “Learning Models for Academic Writing: A Systematic Review of Higher Education Studies (2010–2024)”
Abstract 150–250 words; summarize scope, methods (if systematic), key findings, conclusion; keywords Summarizes review for indexing and relevance “This review synthesizes 42 studies … Findings revealed three dominant models: process-based, genre-based, and technology-assisted approaches.”
Introduction Present rationale, scope, and research gap Justifies the need for the review “Although many models exist, no synthesis compares their effectiveness across contexts.”
Methods For systematic reviews: databases, search terms, inclusion/exclusion, PRISMA; For narrative: selection rationale Clarifies transparency and reproducibility “Following PRISMA, databases searched: Scopus, WoS, ERIC; inclusion: English, 2010–2024.”
Results / Findings Summarize studies thematically; use tables/figures; meta-analysis if applicable Organizes large amounts of information Table comparing process-based, genre-based, and technology-assisted models
Discussion Critically evaluate literature; highlight consistencies, contradictions, strengths, weaknesses Positions findings in theoretical and practical contexts “Consistent with Hyland (2019), genre-based models remain effective but lack integration with digital platforms.”
Conclusion Summarize contributions and gaps; suggest future research Provides closure and direction “Hybrid models combining genre-based and technology-assisted approaches are promising.”
Acknowledgments Same as IMRAD Recognizes non-author contributions “The authors thank the reviewers for valuable comments.”
References APA 7th style; only cited works Ensures accuracy and quality Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
notonthewires